coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Padova.
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Padova, which she had let to F.C.
9.  In a registered letter of 4 July 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 6 September 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Padova Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 19 September 1989, which was made enforceable on 26 September 1989, the Padova Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
12.  On 20 April 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 8 June 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 July 1993.
14.  Between 17 July 1993 and 27 February 1995 the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession.
15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.
17.  On 7 December 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
18.  On 23 January 1998, the tenant vacated the apartment.
9.  The applicants were the owners of a flat in Milan, which they had let to M.A.
10.  In a registered letter of 16 January 1989, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1990 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 February 1990, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 28 March 1990, which was made enforceable on 25 June 1990, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1991.
13.  On 5 June and again on 13 September 1991, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
14.  On 3 July 1991, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.
15.  On 4 December 1991, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 December 1991.
16.  Between 13 December 1991 and 7 January 1997, the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  At the end of January 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.
6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to V.C.
7.  The tenant fell in rent arrears.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 May 1984, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 5 June 1984, which was made enforceable on 5 July 1984, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 5 June 1985.
10.  On an unspecified date, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On an unspecified date the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 July 1986.
12.  Between 29 July 1986 and 20 September 1993 the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession.
13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 25 November 1993, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Leghorn.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Leghorn, which she had let to G.T. and G.P.
10.  In a registered letter of 18 November 1987, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1989 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenants on 5 December 1987, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Leghorn Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 14 December 1987, which was made enforceable on 15 December 1987, the Leghorn Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 October 1989.
13.  On 11 May 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
14.  On 31 May 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
15.  On 15 June 1990, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 July 1990.
16.  Between 10 July 1990 and 5 April 1996, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.
17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 9 July 1999, the tenants asked the Leghorn District Court to postpone the execution of the order for possession, pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998.
19.  On 11 August 1999, the applicant served a second notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 September 1999.
20.  On 10 November 1999, pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the Leghorn District Court postponed the execution of the order for possession until 14 April 2000.
21.  On 25 May 2000 and on 15 July 2000, the bailiff made two attempts, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
22.  In the meanwhile, on 2 July 2000, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently needed the apartment for herself.
23.  On 19 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Rocca Priora (Rome).
9.  He is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to C.C.
10.  In a registered letter of 17 April 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 May 1986 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 January 1985, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 11 March 1985, which was made enforceable on 2 April 1985, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1987.
13.  On 3 April 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
14.  On 27 April 1987 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 June 1987.
15.  Between 5 June 1987 and 31 January 1989, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession.
16.  On 11 May 1989, the applicant had made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself. On 20 October 1993, he reiterated the declaration.
17.  Between 6 September 1989 and 22 February 1996, the bailiff made forty two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 24 March 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Rome.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to G.S.
10.  In a registered letter of 2 November 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 December 1984, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 6 February 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 10 January 1986.
13.  On 19 December 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 27 January 1987, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 March 1987.
15.  Between 13 March 1987 and 27 January 1989, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession.
16.  On 12 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her family.
17.  Between 19 May 1989 and 14 July 1999, the bailiff made sixty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 25 February 2000, the tenant vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Florence.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to S.G.
10.  In a registered letter of 26 March 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 12 June 1985 the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
12.  On 27 December 1985, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 December 1986. That decision was made enforceable on 7 April 1987.
13.  On 16 April 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 20 May 1987, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 June 1987.
15.  Between 29 June 1987 and 17 September 1992, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession.
16.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 28 September 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises in order to sell them at a normal market price.
18. Between 20 January 1993 and 16 September 1998, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.
19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
20.  Following the entry into force of Law No. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 28 June 1999.
21.  On 29 March 2002, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 December 2003.
7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Leghorn.
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Leghorn, which she had let to O.C.L.
9.  On an unidentified date, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 July 1991 the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Leghorn Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 29 July 1991, which was made enforceable on 17 September 1991, the Leghorn Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
12.  On 29 March 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 15 May 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
14.  On 20 May 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 June 1993.
15.  Between 17 June 1993 and 4 June 1998, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  Following the entry into force of Law No. 431 of 1998, on 27 July 1999, the tenant asked the Leghorn District Court to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order for possession.
17.  The applicant asked the court to reject the tenant's request.
18.  On 23 September 1999, the Leghorn Magistrate decided to postpone the enforcement proceedings until 10 February 2001. In the meantime, pursuant to Law No. 388/00 all evictions of tenants were suspended until 30  June 2001.
19.  On 2 July 2001, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 July 2001.
20.  On 3 August 2001, the Leghorn Magistrate decided to postpone the enforcement proceedings first until 23 April 2002 and then until 16 May 2002.
21.  On 23 May 2002, the applicant was granted police assistance to evict the tenant only once, but to no avail, as the tenant claimed he was ill and an officially assigned doctor was available to check his allegations.
22.  On 24 May 2002 the applicant had not recovered possession of her flat.
8.  On 20 December 1996 the applicant was accused of an offence of attempting to sell explosives.
9.  On 28 January 1997 he was arrested in the context of the criminal proceedings. On 30 January 1997 a judge ordered his release.
10.  On 3 February 1997 the Minister of the Interior dismissed the applicant from the police. The decision referred to the conclusions reached by the Police Corps Inspection Office according to which the applicant had offered to sell explosives, and that on 8 June 1996 he had driven a car in which the police later found explosives.
11.  On 26 March 1997 an expert opinion on the applicant’s mental health was submitted to the Žilina Regional Office of Investigation in the context of the criminal proceedings.
12.  On 28 May 1997 the Žilina Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant, charging him with two offences of involvement in the unauthorised transport of explosives before the Žilina Regional Court.
13.  On 11 June 1997 the case was assigned to a different judge as the judge to whom the case had originally fallen to be examined was an acquaintance of the applicant.
14.  On 25 November 1997 the Regional Court judge requested the Prievidza District Court to submit decisions concerning one of the accused.
15.  On 16 April 1999 the Regional Court returned the case to the public prosecutor for further investigation. The prosecutor appealed on 27 April 1999. On 11 May 1999 the case was submitted to the Supreme Court. On 18 August 1999 the latter quashed the Regional Court’s decision of 16 April 1999 and ordered the first instance court to proceed with the case. The case file was returned to the Regional Court on 11 October 1999.
16.  A hearing scheduled for 12 January 2000 had to be adjourned as one of the accused persons’ lawyers was absent.
17.  Hearings were held on 17 February 2000, on 10 March 2000, on 16 June 2000 and on 27 July 2000. The case was adjourned as it was necessary to hear further witnesses.
18.  On 13 September 2000 and on 26 October 2000 the case had to be adjourned as witnesses failed to appear.
19.  On 29 November 2000 the Regional Court heard three witnesses. The case was adjourned as the court considered it necessary to hear another witness in respect of whom an arrest warrant had been issued. On 1 and 22 December 2000 and on 3 April 2001 the Regional Court asked the police to establish the whereabouts of the witness.
20.  On 14 February 2001 the president of the Žilina Regional Court informed the applicant that the case had not been proceeded with in January 2001 as the presiding judge was ill.
21.  On 10 May 2001 the Žilina Regional Court acquitted the applicant. On 17 August 2001 the public prosecutor appealed. One of the applicant’s co-accused also filed an appeal. The case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 27 August 2001. On 15 November 2001 one of the accused submitted observations on the public prosecutor’s appeal.
22.  A hearing before the Supreme Court scheduled for 12 December 2001 was cancelled.
23.  On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The decision became final on the same day.
8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Riano, which they had let to F.M.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 31 July 1986, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Castelnuovo di Porto Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 3 November 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Castelnuovo di Porto Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 April 1989.
11.  On 17 May 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 1 August 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 August 1989.
13.  Between 11 August 1989 and 27 May 1996, the bailiff made thirty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended for nine months.
15.  The applicant decided, therefore, not to pursue the enforcement proceedings given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.
16.  According to the latest information provided by the applicants in their letter of 18 February 2002, they have not recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to I.M.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1987 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 29 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 7 July 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.
9.  On 4 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
10.  On 7 October 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 17 November 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 December 1989.
12.  Between 18 December 1989 and 24 January 1997, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession.
13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 28 February 1997, the applicant repossessed the apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1912 and lives in Mercato Sanseverino.
9.  He is the owner of an apartment in Mercato Sanseverino, which he had let to M.S. in 1974. The lease was due to expire on 31 December 1983, but was extended until 31 December 1987 pursuant to Law No. 392/78.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 September 1986, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Mercato Sanseverino Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 30 September 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Mercato Sanseverino Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1989.
12.  On 1 August 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 15 October 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 October 1991.
14.  On 28 October 1991, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 18 November 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.
16.  On 18 February 1992, the bailiff asked the local police to provide their assistance in enforcing the order for possession and at the same time suspended the enforcement proceedings until the assistance would be granted.
17.  At the beginning of 1998, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Naples.
9.  She is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to L.T.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 October 1986, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
11.  On 3 November 1986, the Naples Magistrate did not uphold the validity of the notice to quit and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case.
12.  On 11 November 1986, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. In a judgment of 10 July 1987, deposited with the registry on 22 July 1987, the court declared that the lease would terminate on 4 November 1987 and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
13.  On 20 February 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 8 April 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 April 1992.
15.  On 28 April 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter.
16.  On 29 April 1992 and 12 February 1993, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession.
17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.
19.  On 27 June 1995, the applicant served again notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
20.  On 5 July 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 July 1995.
21.  Between 24 July 1995 and 7 October 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
22.  On 28 October 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.